​

REVIEWER GUIDELINES 

Updated: July 2025 

Thank you for serving as a peer reviewer for the Cyber Defense Review (CDR). Your time, expertise, and thoughtful feedback are vital to ensuring the quality and relevance of the scholarship we publish. 

CDR AT A GLANCE 

The Cyber Defense Review bridges academic research, military strategy, and operational cyber defense. It publishes original research, professional commentaries, senior leader perspectives, and special features on topics including cyber strategy, policy, technical innovation, resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and more. Our readership includes defense professionals, policymakers, researchers, military leaders, and interdisciplinary practitioners. For this reason, we value writing that is analytically rigorous, accessible in tone, and strategically relevant. 

THE PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW 

Peer review at CDR serves two complementary purposes: 

  • For the editorial team: It supports decision-making about whether a manuscript meets the standards, scope, and expectations of the journal. It provides insights into whether the manuscript is original, timely, and relevant to our audience. 

  • For the authors: It provides constructive, detailed feedback that can help improve the submission—whether it is accepted, revised, or ultimately rejected. We strongly value developmental reviewing that supports growth and clarity. 

You also help us ensure CDR maintains the highest editorial and ethical standards. 

TYPES OF SUBMISSIONS REVIEWED 

You may be asked to review: 

  • Research articles – Academic studies with clear research questions, methods, and contributions. 

  • Professional commentaries – Practice-oriented essays that reflect operational, policy, or strategic perspectives. They do not require the same level of academic formalism as research articles but should offer clear, well-argued insights that inform both practice and policy. We strongly value the subject-matter expertise of the authors in these submissions—many contributors are seasoned professionals or leaders reflecting on their field experiences. 

WHAT TO FOCUS ON? 

For Research Articles, please assess the manuscript using the following criteria:  

  • Originality and timeliness: Does the paper present a timely, novel and meaningful contribution to the field of cyber defense? 

  • Clarity and readability: Is the manuscript well-structured and easy to follow? 

  • Grounding in literature: Does the manuscript engage sufficiently with existing research and prior work to support its claims? 

  • Contribution: To what extent does the manuscript offer a contribution that is relevant and impactful for cyber defense research or practice? 

For Professional Commentaries, please assess the manuscript using the following criteria: 

  • Relevance and timeliness: Does the commentary address a current or emerging issue in the cyber defense landscape? 

  • Practical insight and originality: Does the commentary offer thoughtful, practice-oriented reflection or share experience-based insight? Is the perspective fresh, provocative, or especially valuable to the field? 

  • Argumentation and support: Is there a clear position or reflection articulated by the author(s)? Where appropriate, is it supported by relevant literature, frameworks, or debates – even briefly? 

  • Clarity and accessibility: Is the writing clear, engaging, and accessible to a broad readership? Is the tone appropriate for a professional but non-academic piece?  

FORMAT AND TONE OF YOUR REVIEW 

To ensure consistency and usefulness, we ask reviewers for The Cyber Defense Review to structure their reviews into three clear parts.  

Please keep your feedback constructive, respectful, and specific. This is particularly important when the author may come from a different disciplinary, military, or policy background than you. It is often recommended to write in the third person rather than addressing the authors directly (e.g., “The paper would benefit from…” rather than “You should…”). 

Whenever possible, do not only point out shortcomings—suggest ways to improve. For example, recommend alternative framings, literature to consider, or ways to clarify the structure or argument. 

1. Summary of the Contribution (Approx. 1 paragraph – 100 to 150 words) 

Begin your review by briefly summarizing the manuscript in your own words. This helps the editorial team verify alignment between the manuscript’s intent and your understanding. Include the paper’s purpose, main argument or finding, and the type of contribution it offers (e.g., empirical study, policy analysis, design proposal, professional commentary, etc.). 

2. Overall Assessment and Recommendation (Approx. 200–300 words) 

This section should provide a concise judgment of the manuscript’s quality, clarity, and relevance. Focus on the key evaluation criteria provided in the review form. 

You should also indicate what your recommendation is (see below). If you are recommending revision or rejection, clearly explain your reasoning. We encourage reviewers to provide both praise for strengths and constructive criticism for weaknesses. Please also comment on the writing style, conciseness, and overall coherence of the manuscript. 

3. Section-by-Section Comments (Approx. 400–600 words total) 

Provide more detailed feedback for specific sections of the manuscript. The goal is to guide authors in improving their work, especially if they are invited to revise and resubmit. You may structure your comments using the manuscript’s standard sections, such as: 

  • Title and Abstract – Does the title accurately reflect the paper’s focus, and does the abstract clearly convey its purpose, method, and main insight? 

  • Introduction – Is the problem or question clearly defined and well-motivated for a multidisciplinary audience? 

  • Related Work / Literature – Does the manuscript engage meaningfully with relevant literature or frameworks to position its contribution? 

  • Methodology / Approach – Is the research design or analytical approach clearly described, appropriate, and well-justified? 

  • Findings / Argument – Are the findings/claims clearly stated, well-supported, and logically presented? 

  • Conclusion / Implications – Are the conclusions justified and are their implications clearly articulated for research, policy, or practice? 

  • Formatting / Style – Is the manuscript clearly written and well-structured? 

If you identify issues such as unsupported claims, inconsistent terminology, or missing references, specify the page or section. 

4. In-text comments (optional but encouraged) 

If you wish to leave edits or comments directly on the manuscript, you may do so by opening the original .docx file, which can be accessed via the hyperlink on page 2 of the PDF manuscript. You can then use track changes or in-text comments. If you choose this option, please upload your annotated file alongside your review report in Editorial Manager. 

Confidentiality note: CDR uses double-blind review for Research Articles and single-blind review for Professional Commentary. Your identity as a reviewer should therefore not be disclosed to the authors. Please ensure that your name does not appear in the file meta-data, commenting feature, and that you do not include any identifying remarks in your review. 

YOUR RECOMMENDATION 

Your recommendation will fall into one of the following categories: 

  • Accept (rare): This decision is reserved for submissions that are exceptionally strong and require no further revisions. It is rarely used, as most manuscripts—even high-quality ones—typically benefit from at least minor improvements before publication. 

  • Minor revisions: The manuscript is generally deemed publishable, pending some limited improvements. These may include clarifying specific points, strengthening phrasing, adding missing references, or making small adjustments to the background or discussion. The journal is usually committed to publication once these revisions are made. Authors are given 20 days to complete the changes, though extensions can be granted upon request. 

  • Major revisions: The submission shows clear potential but requires substantial improvements before it can be considered for publication. The revisions may involve significant additions or restructuring of specific sections, strengthening the argument, addressing methodological or conceptual gaps, or deepening the analysis. Publication is not guaranteed yet. Authors are given 30 days to revise, with extensions available upon request. 

  • Reject: The submission is not suitable for publication in its current form and is unlikely to meet the journal’s standards even with substantial revision. This decision may be based on concerns related to the manuscript’s quality, originality, relevance, clarity, or contribution to the field. Detailed and constructive feedback should be provided to help authors understand the reasons for rejection and, where appropriate, improve their work for submission elsewhere. 

You may also submit confidential comments to the editors to clarify sensitive points, raise serious concerns or ethical issues, or specify what revisions you consider mandatory or optional. These are not shared with the author. 

TIMELINE AND COMMUNICATION 

  • Once you accept an invitation, you will typically have 3 weeks to complete your review. It is greatly appreciated to receive your feedback before this deadline. 

  • We understand time constraints—please notify us promptly if you need an extension or cannot complete the review. 

  • If you decline, we would appreciate referrals to other qualified reviewers. 

SUBMITTING YOUR REVIEW 

Once your evaluation is complete, please submit your review through the Editorial Manager system. You will find the manuscript PDF in your reviewer dashboard, with a link on page 2 allowing you to access the original Word source file—this can be useful for inserting in-text comments or tracked changes. 

You will be prompted to: 

  • Select a recommendation from the dropdown menu. 

  • Indicate whether you would be open to reviewing a revised version of the manuscript. This is highly appreciated as it is hard for a new reviewer to assess the changes you have requested. 

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest 

  • Summarize the paper and its contribution 

  • Rate the manuscript (on a 1-5 scale) across several dimensions: originality and timeliness, clarity and readability, grounding in literature, contribution to cyber defense research or practice 

  • Enter your comments to the author (text box), this is the main review. 

  • Optionally, add confidential notes to the editor. 

If you encounter technical issues, please email the Editorial Office. 

ETHICS AND BEST PRACTICES 

CDR adheres to the COPE Core Practices. Reviewers must: 

  • Declare any conflicts of interest. If in doubt, refer to our conflict-of-interest policy for guidance. 

  • Maintain confidentiality. 

  • Avoid any form of discrimination or bias. 

  • Notify the editorial team of any suspected plagiarism, ethical concerns, or duplicate publication. 

USE OF GENERATIVE AI TOOLS 

CDR permits reviewers to use GenAI tools for limited purposes, under the following conditions: 

  • You may use GenAI tools to help edit or rephrase your own review report for clarity or structure.  

  • You may not input any part of the manuscript into GenAI toolq 

  • You are responsible for ensuring that any output used from GenAI tools is accurate, fair, and free of bias. 

  • You must never use GenAI to make a recommendation or produce an assessment in lieu of your own critical judgment. 

Violating these conditions undermines author confidentiality and peer review integrity. 

RECOGNITION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

CDR recognizes peer reviewers annually on our website and in print issues. Outstanding reviewers may also be invited to join our Editorial Board or participate in special initiatives. 

 

Thank you for your commitment to cyber defense scholarship and practice. If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact the editorial team at TheCyberDefenseReview@westpoint.edu